From: owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com[SMTP:owner-krnet-l-digest@teleport.com] Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 11:35 PM To: krnet-l-digest@teleport.com Subject: krnet-l-digest V2 #8 krnet-l-digest Friday, January 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:11:33 -0800 From: Ross Subject: Re: KR: Control Stops MikeT nyc wrote: Mike, > Since the design has never called for stops and thousands of KR's have been > built without them, presumably other inspectors have approved not having them > without any bad results. Would it be worth a shot to try to change this guy's > mind rather than rebuilding the plane? > > Mike Taglieri Thousands? Hundreds surely, over 1500 possibly but 2000-3000? Anyone know the real number? Also RE: Control stops... couldn't you just validate that the controls don't exceed the specified travel mentioned in the plans? Hmm, it was in the plans someplace wasn't it... or was that Vaughn Askue's book. Geez... I've got lots of work to do before flying. -- Ross - -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 98 15:43:19 ÿÿÿ From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za Subject: KR: Accident Stats Had a look at the stats posted on KR accidents some interesting figures '94 5 accidents '95 10 accidents '96 3 accidents '97 3 accidents I don't think that is a bad record for the aircraft. It says something about the good standards employed by the builders of the a/c. Maybe the information gained from the KRnet and newsletter have contributed to keeping the figures this low. I would interested to know how many KR2/2S s were on the register in these years? Steve in South Africa steveb@aviation.denel.co.za ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 06:30:49 PST From: "Oscar Zuniga" Subject: KR: Control Stops Mike T wrote: >Since the design has never called for stops and thousands of KR's >have been built without them, presumably other inspectors have >approved not having them without any bad results. Would it be worth >a shot to try to change this guy's mind rather than rebuilding the >plane? > Whoa, babe! No stops? I'm going back to look at my plans; I thought the control travel limits/minima were all listed, and the control surface travels physically self-limited by the way the gap seals and aileron spars are constructed. Oscar Zuniga Medford, Oregon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:59:02 -0600 From: pierce@pat.lgb.cal.boeing.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: KR: KR2S Baggage > Another possibility is an ad I once saw for a single golf club that's supposed > to replace a whole set. It has a rachet device on the head that lets you set > the angle to equal all the standard clubs. I'm sure serious golfers on this > list are rushing for their airsickness bags at this point. . . . > > Mike Taglieri Here's the chance to buy those graphite shafts you've been drooling over! I switched to graphite a few years ago, and they cut my bag weight down by a bunch. Throw 'em in a small canvas Sunday bag, wear your spikes, put your pencils behind your ear, balls in your trouser pockets, coupla tees in the corner of your mouth. Man, you can save weight EVERYwhere! - -gun one ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:14:40 -0600 From: pierce@pat.lgb.cal.boeing.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats > From: steveb@aviation.denel.co.za > > Had a look at the stats posted on KR accidents > some interesting figures > '94 5 accidents > '95 10 accidents > '96 3 accidents > '97 3 accidents > I don't think that is a bad record for the aircraft. It says something > about the good standards employed by the builders of the a/c. Maybe the > information gained from the KRnet and newsletter have contributed to > keeping the figures this low. On the other hand, it adds up to 95 accidents out of a few hundred built. It almost becomes not a matter of *if* you're going to break a KR but *when*! Looks like a lot of engine-related accidents tho. Maybe more attention ought to be aimed in that direction. - -gun one ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:28:39 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats At 03:43 PM 1/9/98, you wrote: >Had a look at the stats posted on KR accidents >some interesting figures >'94 5 accidents >'95 10 accidents >'96 3 accidents >'97 3 accidents >I don't think that is a bad record for the aircraft. It says something about the good standards employed by the builders of the a/c. Maybe the information gained from the KRnet and newsletter have contributed to keeping the figures this low. > It would be great if someone or group would organize to get these numbers lower buy education! KRnet mission number 3?? Hummm....... Looks like 95 was a bad year for the KR! It seems a large percentage of accidents are due to engine stoppage which results in a stall spin. The reasons for engine stoppage seem to be either fuel or ignition related, mostly fuel. They need fuel to run people and most of the reports indicate there was little or no fuel at the crash site or clogged fuel lines. On a better note, there seems to be very few catastrophic engines failures which is saying a lot for the little VW! Of course there are the crashes that are just a result of natural selection at work (you know the head up butt, maximum insertion thing). Damn you have to wonder what the hell some of these guys were thinking! Well the answer is they were NOT thinking! Lets make sure everyone on this list is around in at the 2002 gathering (30th for the KR). Keep your mind on what your doing and ask yourself is this really the right thing to do or is this stupid! Its not hard, Is it stupid to put a piece off tupperware in the passenger seat and run your fuel line into it with a squeeze bulb? Is it stupid to take off into IMC conditions in a VERY VFR airplane without a instrument rating? Is it stupid to continue to try and land your KR in a 30 knot cross wind after two attempt? Is it stupid to work no your engine and leave half of the sparkplug leads off? Is it stupid to continue to fly for more than 3.0 hours when you know your KR only carries 2.8 hours of fuel? FYI I pulled reports on KRs, C-150s, and PA-38s for a period between 1985 and 1997. The KR had a little over 100, the Cessna had close to 600 and the pa-38 around 300. Compared to hours flown I would say the safety record for the KR has room for significant improvement! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:45:13 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: Control Stops At 06:30 AM 1/9/98 PST, you wrote: >Whoa, babe! No stops? I'm going back to look at my plans; I thought >the control travel limits/minima were all listed, and the control >surface travels physically self-limited by the way the gap seals and >aileron spars are constructed. > >Oscar Zuniga I don't know if the plans say anything about it but it kinda obvious that the control horns for the elevator and rudder are by design the stops. At least on my control horns anyway. The ailerons are another animal, I have no idea how to setup control stops on the ailerons. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:27:57 -0500 From: msharkey@softarc.com (Mike Sharkey) Subject: Re(2): KR: Accident Stats krnet-l@teleport.com,Internet writes: >FYI I pulled reports on KRs, C-150s, and PA-38s for a period between 1985 >and 1997. The KR had a little over 100, the Cessna had close to 600 and the >pa-38 around 300. Compared to hours flown I would say the safety record for >the KR has room for significant improvement! I'm new to the KR. I'm considering building one. I'm just wondering if there is ample flight characteristic data published along with the kit, plans, etc... I read all of the NTSB reportts concerning the KR and it seemed to me that time after time pilots fail to maintain sufficient air speed at low altitude, stall and crash, often the pilot has little time in the aircraft type. Is it that these pilots are unaware that the KR has a relatively high stall speed? Or is this just natural selection at work? Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that there is obviously a trend here and it appears to be nothing more than an educational issue, rather that a real problem with the aircraft. Mike Sharkey X11 Development SoftArc Inc. http://www.softarc.com/~msharkey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:42:32 -0800 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: Re(2): KR: Accident Stats Mike Sharkey wrote: > > krnet-l@teleport.com,Internet writes: > >FYI I pulled reports on KRs, C-150s, and PA-38s for a period between 1985 > >and 1997. The KR had a little over 100, the Cessna had close to 600 and the > >pa-38 around 300. Compared to hours flown I would say the safety record for > >the KR has room for significant improvement! > > I'm new to the KR. I'm considering building one. I'm just wondering if there is > ample flight characteristic data published along with the kit, plans, etc... I > read all of the NTSB reportts concerning the KR and it seemed to me that time > after time pilots fail to maintain sufficient air speed at low altitude, stall > and crash, often the pilot has little time in the aircraft type. Is it that > these pilots are unaware that the KR has a relatively high stall speed? Or is > this just natural selection at work? Say... how about FLYING KR pilots posting their stall speeds in different configurations... that way we can get an idea of the range. I think we did somthing like this a year ago, but I think it was approach or cruise speeds. > Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that there is obviously a trend here and it > appears to be nothing more than an educational issue, rather that a real > problem with the aircraft. > > Mike Sharkey > X11 Development > SoftArc Inc. > http://www.softarc.com/~msharkey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:40:54 -0800 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats Micheal Mims wrote: > FYI I pulled reports on KRs, C-150s, and PA-38s for a period between 1985 > and 1997. The KR had a little over 100, the Cessna had close to 600 and the > pa-38 around 300. Compared to hours flown I would say the safety record for > the KR has room for significant improvement! I got the impression from the stats, that many of the KR incidents were from pilots with low time in type. For the C-150/PA-38, your instructor won't let you fly solo until you have time in type. I think that many owners of KR's, since they finally OWN the plane have the luxury of taking off with low time. Imagine if people could afford to buy C-150's/PA-38's for $4,000, I think you would see a corresponding rise in accidents. Now... how to get time in type? -- Ross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:12:01 -0800 From: "John F. Esch" Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats Welcome aboard Mike ! John F. Esch Salem, OR http://www.cyberis.net/~sesch Mike Sharkey wrote: > krnet-l@teleport.com,Internet writes: > >FYI I pulled reports on KRs, C-150s, and PA-38s for a period between > 1985 > >and 1997. The KR had a little over 100, the Cessna had close to 600 > and the > >pa-38 around 300. Compared to hours flown I would say the safety > record for > >the KR has room for significant improvement! > > I'm new to the KR. I'm considering building one. I'm just wondering if > there is > ample flight characteristic data published along with the kit, plans, > etc... I > read all of the NTSB reportts concerning the KR and it seemed to me > that time > after time pilots fail to maintain sufficient air speed at low > altitude, stall > and crash, often the pilot has little time in the aircraft type. Is it > that > these pilots are unaware that the KR has a relatively high stall > speed? Or is > this just natural selection at work? > > Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that there is obviously a trend here > and it > appears to be nothing more than an educational issue, rather that a > real > problem with the aircraft. > > Mike Sharkey > X11 Development > SoftArc Inc. > http://www.softarc.com/~msharkey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:37:25 -0800 From: Ross Youngblood Subject: KR: [Fwd: BOUNCE krnet-l@lists.teleport.com: Non-member submission from [Jim Faughn ]] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------167EB0E72781E494446B9B3D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- KRNET-L Administrator !!! REMEMBER POSTS GO TO !!! krnet@krnet.org !!! KRNET-L@teleport.com !!! rossy@teleport.com !!! NOT krnet@krnet.org !!! http://www.krnet.org - --------------167EB0E72781E494446B9B3D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: by smtp3 for krnet (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.21 1997/08/10) Fri Jan 9 11:58:49 1998) X-From_: krnet-l-owner Tue Jan 6 04:53:22 1998 Return-Path: owner-krnet-l@lists.teleport.com Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp4.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id EAA21928; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 04:53:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 04:53:21 -0800 (PST) From: owner-krnet-l@teleport.com Message-Id: <199801061253.EAA21928@smtp4.teleport.com> To: owner-krnet-l@teleport.com Subject: BOUNCE krnet-l@lists.teleport.com: Non-member submission from [Jim Faughn ] >From krnet-l-owner Tue Jan 6 04:53:20 1998 Received: from Walden.MO.NET (Walden.mo.Net [209.96.2.52]) by smtp4.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21924 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 04:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mo.net (DialIP5-447.mvp.net [209.96.71.193]) by Walden.MO.NET (8.8.5/8.6.10) with ESMTP id GAA18947 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:51:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <34B22A19.256B9C39@mo.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 06:56:57 -0600 From: Jim Faughn X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KR NET Response for Digest Subject: Tail Spring Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Because of the volume of E-mail I am now using the digest. So excuse me for late or redundant responses and if I don't respond at all, I may have missed the message so you might E-mail me directly rather than through the list. I will put any responses in one email message in the future that respond to the digest information to reduce bandwidth. YOU WROTE Sun, 4 Jan 1998 21:54:23 EST From: BSHADR Subject: KR: Re: Tail Wheel thoughts... In a message dated 98-01-04 09:37:40 EST, Dana wrote: << I currently have the RR design spring steel tailwheel assembly but I have bought the "soft" wheel from Steve. I am looking to replace the spring steel with a rod. At the TN gathering I noticed the rod would lessen the tailwheel noise considerable and that Dan used to sell the fiberglass rod. Question, is the rod actually 100% glass? If anyone I heard a story at the '96 gathering that the glass rod tailwheel Dan made was a real chore to make. Doesn't Jim Faughn have one of the glass rod ones? Jim, ya out there? - --- The tailwheel spring on my KR is 100% fiberglass and is a pain to make. Dan never sold the springs, rather he developed a mold that was used for the initial layup. Anyone could make a plug for this purpose from bondo or ? and then make a mold from fiberglass finally laying up the initial spring. After the spring came out of the mold with streight S-glass it was then wrapped with several layers of 10oz bid to keep the S-glass together. Next you had to design your own tail wheel holder. Mine is different from Marti and Dans old one. Was it worth it? I think so, but I did it later and retrofitted my plane with it when I had the time to make it and still fly. It is definitely quite which is a result of the spring and Steves "soft" wheel. - -- Jim Faughn N8931JF St. Louis, MO (314) 652-7659 or (573) 465-8039 - --------------167EB0E72781E494446B9B3D-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 16:50:53 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Spar width errors in plans. EagleGator wrote: > The difference in width of the center spar and the outer spar is 2 5/32 - 1 > 15/16 = 7/32. Add the thickness of the two wing attach fittings on the outer > spar, 2 x 7/64 = 7/32, and you make the outer spar the same thickness as the > ceter spar. The center wing attach fittings now fit flush to the center spar > and the outer wing attach fittings. Since you are adding the same thickness > of webbing to the center spar and the outer spar, the net diference in > dimensions remains constant. Therefore they will fit as drawn. Don't cut > down your outer spar! > > Do the math, make yourself a sketch, and it will look better to you. > > Cheers! > Rick Junkin > EagleGator@aol.com > St. Louis MO I think the real problem here is that the wing attach fittings are NOT 7/64" thick, they are more like 9/64" or 10/64" thick and so this causes an interference fit. I'm going to measure this thickness with a caliper and report back but I'm sure this is the problem. I'm going to trim the outer spar on the back side 1/16". This would not reduce the thickness 1/16" on the entire spar, just the fat part that bolts between the WAF's. Judging by Ross's response, I'm not alone with this problem. I noticed that the KR-2 plan does not call for sheeting on the rear of the outer spar, only on the front of it. This would account for 3/32" of interference on the KR-2S which has sheeting on the back as well. I'm going to reduce the incidence to 1 degree while I'm at it since every KR-2 I see on a fast fly-by goes past tail high like a Piper Cub. This would indicate that there is too much incidence for high speed flight like I want to get someday with an O-200 or Jabiru 3300 cc 6-cylinder engine. - -Tom in Orlando ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 14:02:43 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: [Fwd: BOUNCE krnet-l@lists.teleport.com: Non-member submission from [Jim Faughn ]] At 12:37 PM 1/9/98 -0800, you wrote: >The tailwheel spring on my KR is 100% fiberglass and is a pain to make. Dan never sold the springs, rather he developed a mold that was used for the initial layup. Anyone could make a plug for this purpose from bondo or ?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yall could just use the spring that is sold for use on the Dragonfly, its cheep and seems to do the job for that aircraft, which has much more weight on the tailwheel than a KR. Look in AS&S or Wicks. Part number df100-057 is a 24 inch long spring and cost $13 from Wicks Hardly worth building yourself if you can buy one for $13!! Dontcha think? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Happy Holidays to Everyone! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 14:03:53 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: KR: Tailwheel spring from glass! At 12:37 PM 1/9/98 -0800, you wrote: >The tailwheel spring on my KR is 100% fiberglass and is a pain to make. Dan never sold the springs, rather he developed a mold that was used for the initial layup. Anyone could make a plug for this purpose from bondo or ?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yall could just use the spring that is sold for use on the Dragonfly, its cheep and seems to do the job for that aircraft, which has much more weight on the tailwheel than a KR. Look in AS&S or Wicks. Part number df100-057 is a 24 inch long spring and cost $13 from Wicks Hardly worth building yourself if you can buy one for $13!! Dontcha think? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:51:03 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: Spar width errors in plans. In a message dated 98-01-08 23:02:33 EST, you write: << Am I missing something on the plans? The width of the center spar is 2 5/32" and the width of the outer spar is 1 15/16". Considering the center and outer spars are sheeted on both sides for the KR-2S, with the two wing attach fittings each about 7/64" thickness, the outer spar plus WAF's is 1/16" too thick to fit between the WAF's on the center spar. I'm going to reduce the thickness of the outer spar by 1/16" to make it all fit right. >> Hey Tom, I made mine right from the 2-S plans and they seem to have come out just fine. I DID note that they (WAF's) fit VERY tight with no slop when mating the outer spars to the inner one but maybe I was just lucky. I did do some checking on the dimensions prior to cutting but was satisfied the prints were correct. Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:18:52 -0500 From: Tom Andersen Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats The KR had a little over 100, the Cessna had close to 600 and the > pa-38 around 300. Compared to hours flown I would say the safety record for > the KR has room for significant improvement! I think the safety record is just fine. There is nothing in these reports to indicate KR's are dangerous. Everybody knows that pilots of homebuilts don't get current enough in type because they are too busy building the plane. One accident report states that the pilot crashed during high speed taxi because he forgot that he was holding the stick full back. He took off vertically, went up 50 feet and crashed. This is not a test pilot's typical reactions. He had no business being in the plane. Some planes were never even inspected. One pilot had not flown the plane in six months but on a demo flight to a prospective buyer immediately went to slow speed configuration right over the runway and crashed. Duh. The thing that stands out the most is fuel starvation. If you don't fuel flow test the plane you're nuts. Additionally, I plan to point the nose up in takeoff attitude using ramps and full power. - -Tom ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:13:51 EST From: JEHayward Subject: Re: KR: [Fwd: BOUNCE krnet-l@lists.teleport.com: Non-member submission from In a message dated 98-01-09 17:06:26 EST, you write: << Yall could just use the spring that is sold for use on the Dragonfly, its cheep and seems to do the job for that aircraft, which has much more weight on the tailwheel than a KR. Look in AS&S or Wicks. Part number df100-057 is a 24 inch long spring and cost $13 from Wicks Hardly worth building yourself if you can buy one for $13!! Dontcha think? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims >> Jeez!!! Is this list great or what??? Jim Hayward ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 14:40:27 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Fiberglass spring, was Re: KR: [Fwd: BOUNCE krnet-l@lists.teleport.com: Non-member submission from At 05:13 PM 1/9/98 EST, you wrote: > Jeez!!! Is this list great or what??? > > Jim Hayward > Its awsome baby! <-use your best George Castanza voice. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:44:15 -0500 (EST) From: jeroffey@tir.com (jeroffey) Subject: Re: KR: Tail Wheel Spring - Titanium >I will ask Norm next time I see him... he is part of the >"Wing Nuts" Saturday morning breakfast crowd, but I have to >get over there at 6:00AM to catch them. > > -- Ross > >BSHADR wrote: >> >> In a message dated 98-01-08 15:02:29 EST, Ross write: >> >> << I have seen one other "rod" implementation used for a tailwheel >> spring. Norm Rosenau's Firebird (on my website), used a titanium >> rod for a tailwheel boom. Turns out having a local titanium factory >> locally helps get the stuff. I understand it is hard to machine though.>> >> >> Ross: >> >> Any idea of size and length of the rod? >> >> How was the wheel attached to the boat and to the wheel fork? >> >> Can anybody give me the "Cliff Notes" on how to work with titanium, ie >> cutting, drilling, etc.? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Randy >Tailwheel builders, check out this months Sport Avaition (January) on page39. Rod mounted tailwheel and fairing all swiviling. Very cool. Would look good on a KR. BTW, Troy Pettaways KR on page 59. Enjoy. John Roffey jeroffey@tir.com > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:45:02 EST From: EagleGator Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats I haven't made a pitch lately other than to say that the latest version is posted, so here we go. I would really like for folks to take a look at the test plan I'm working on and have posted on my web site. All of the points regarding safety, proficiency, and preparation that have been raised in this thread are addressed in the plan. I humbly suggest that it is worth your time to take a look, if nothing else than to see if there is anything I came up with that you haven't thought of. And by all means, if there is something you thought of that I don't have in there, PLEASE LET ME KNOW! Which plan you use is unimportant to some degree, the fact that you HAVE one is EXTREMELY important. Let's be carefull out there! Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com St. Charles MO ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:44:57 EST From: EagleGator Subject: Re: KR: Spar width errors in plans. In a message dated 98-01-09 17:01:04 EST, you write: << I think the real problem here is that the wing attach fittings are NOT 7/64" thick, they are more like 9/64" or 10/64" thick and so this causes an interference fit. I'm going to measure this thickness with a caliper and report back but I'm sure this is the problem. >> I just measured mine with a micrometer, and they are exactly .125", or 1/8". You're right, they are oversized, by 1/64" each. I guess that means I overtorqued the bolts on my outer spar fittings a bit, because my spars fit together just like I want them to. I don't think I will have compromised the spar by compressing it 1/64" under each fitting, though. Not optimum, but "good to go". Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com St. Charles MO ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 18:22:53 From: Austin Clark Subject: Re: KR: Spar width errors in plans. >-Tom in Orlando Wrote > > I noticed that the KR-2 plan does not call for sheeting on the rear of the outer spar, only on the front of it. Tom, I could be wrong but I think the outer spars for the KR2S DO get the shear web on both sides. I was confused on this point when I built my spars and later added the webing on the other side. My WAF fit-ups are snug, but they fit. I think this detail is in the supplemental drawings for the KR2S. I will recheck the drawings. Austin Clark Pascagoula, MS http://www.datasync.com/~itac/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:44:19 -0500 From: "Bob Vermeulen" Subject: KR: Looking for Calvin Campbell Hey gang, I'm trying to mail a KR video tape to Calvin Campbell and it's been returned, wrong address. I think I have the right address now. Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Can anybody confirm this. Thanks for the help. For all of you that have ordered in the past 7-10 days, I'm now all caught up and you'll be getting your videos in a few days. Ahh, the wait only makes it more worthwhile when you get it. Video Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 18:46:08 From: Austin Clark Subject: KR: KR2S Spar Shear Web >-Tom in Orlando Wrote > > I noticed that the KR-2 plan does not call for sheeting on the rear of the outer spar, only on the front of it. Tom, (follow up to my previous post) look at KR2S suplemental drawing W1. There is a note in the 'Top View' area of the drawing that says 'Both fore and aft outboard spars have 2.5mm ply on both faces and full length of spars'. Austin Clark Pascagoula, MS http://www.datasync.com/~itac/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 20:26:50 -0500 From: Donald Reid Subject: Re: KR: Control Stops Micheal Mims wrote: > > At 06:30 AM 1/9/98 PST, you wrote: > >... and the control > >surface travels physically self-limited by the way the gap seals and > >aileron spars are constructed. > > > >Oscar Zuniga > > I don't know if the plans say anything about it but it kinda obvious that > the control horns for the elevator and rudder are by design the stops. At > least on my control horns anyway. The ailerons are another animal, I have > no idea how to setup control stops on the ailerons. I think a possible way is at the stick itself. This is not quite as good, but it will work to a degree. - -- Don Reid Bumpass, Va. mailto:donreid@erols.com http://www.erols.com/donreid/kr_page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 19:00:19 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats Mike, you will notice Rick Junkin's test plan being offered for use. There is no reason you have to be a statistic if you exercise common sense. Yes, some KR's are pitch sensitive... So get some time in one so you know how to fly it. I have waited about seven months to fly my purchased KR so that I can get my tail wheel proficiency where I want it. Darn straight I wish I had flown it this summer, but the delay is for safety reasons....MY proficiency and NOT a KR deficiency. Ron Lee > >I'm new to the KR. I'm considering building one. I'm just wondering if there is >ample flight characteristic data published along with the kit, plans, etc... I >read all of the NTSB reportts concerning the KR and it seemed to me that time >after time pilots fail to maintain sufficient air speed at low altitude, stall >and crash, often the pilot has little time in the aircraft type. Is it that >these pilots are unaware that the KR has a relatively high stall speed? Or is >this just natural selection at work? > >Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that there is obviously a trend here and it >appears to be nothing more than an educational issue, rather that a real >problem with the aircraft. > >Mike Sharkey >X11 Development >SoftArc Inc. >http://www.softarc.com/~msharkey > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:46:01 -0800 From: MARVIN MCCOY Subject: Re: KR: UV Protection and Cold, used to be Should I Glass My Fuselage???.... Dennis Ambrose wrote: > > > Marvin: > > I was under the impression that a composite plane HAD to be hangered to > keep the exposure to U.V. etc. to a minimum. Am I wrong in assuming this? > > > Also while I'm taking up bandwidth... no one talks about the cold weather > limitations of the KR2. Does anyone have any guidelines as to how cold is > too cold for a KR2??? > > Regards Dennis (in Toronto)---------------- Dennis: I am not a UV expert. However, I have built many composite boats that set out side all the time. I have always used a grey primer with a polyurethane paint. I have used many different brands of paint and I have not found any one any better then the others. I have never noticed any damage to the underlying glass. The paint will slowly start to fade and go bad. But just like your car you just repaint when needed. As long as the glass is covered with primer and a good grade of paint I do not think the UV will be a problem. You will have other problems if it sets outside. Just like anything else that sets outside. I do not know what the cold limitations are for the KR. There was a article a few months ago about a KR in Alaska. It gets colder there then I want to get. Maybe some one else can address the cold limitations of the KR. Marvin McCoy Seattle, WA. North end of Boeing field Mr.Marvin@worldnet.Att.net - -------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 22:09:32 EST From: EagleGator Subject: KR: Jeff Scott Hey Netters, I just got a note from Jeff, he's going to have back surgery on the 19th of January. I'm sure he'd appreciate hearing from KR folks as he heads "under the knife" and afterwards during his recovery. His email address is jscott.pilot@juno.com. For those of you who don't know him, Jeff had the only flying KR-2S at last years gathering, and a very nice airplane it is. He was interviewed on the video. He's a great guy and, like I said, I'm sure he'd like to hear from folks. Cheers! Rick Junkin EagleGator@aol.com St. Charles MO ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:35:29, -0500 From: YCGB97A@prodigy.com (MR JEAN R VERON) Subject: Re: KR: NTSB Accident stats If you are interested in the real story, ask his brother Calvin at the next gathering. The FAA is close but not quite accurate. They really don't care what happens to homebuilts. Jean N4DD Broken Arrow, OK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:44:39, -0500 From: YCGB97A@prodigy.com (MR JEAN R VERON) Subject: KR: KR Accident summary (NTSB database) Interesting to note that with all the talk on this net about the poor design or beefier mods required. There has not been one in flight failure of the airframe or structure !!!! Jean N4DD ( 21 years old and still flying ) Broken Arrow, OK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:15:39 EST From: EagleGator Subject: Re: KR: Accident Stats In a message dated 98-01-09 22:21:40 EST, you write: << I would really like for folks to take a look at the test plan I'm working on and have posted on my web site. >> Dag nab it, I did it again!!!! The URL is http://members.aol.com/eaglegator. Cheers! Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:14:31, -0500 From: YCGB97A@prodigy.com (MR JEAN R VERON) Subject: KR: Looking for Calvin Campbell Bob Funny you ask. Calvin borrowed my tape today. He will be trying to contact you direct. And yes the B.A. address is the right one. Jean N4DD Broken Arrow , OK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 21:29:51 -0800 From: Micheal Mims Subject: Re: KR: KR Accident summary (NTSB database) At 11:44 PM 1/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >Interesting to note that with all the talk on this net about the poor >design or beefier mods required. There has not been one in flight >failure of the airframe or structure !!!! > Jean > N4DD ( 21 years old and still flying ) > Broken Arrow, OK > I am not sure anyone has complained about the structural properties of the KR just the aerodynamic stuff. If anyone has mentioned that the airframe needs more strength I am sure it was in reference to flying it at higher gross weights. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Micheal Mims Oh My,.......Its 1998!! mailto:mikemims@pacbell.net http://home.pacbell.net/mikemims ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:49:59 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: KR: JC Whitney Browsing the latest JC Whitney catalog, I found a number of things that look interesting, such as lots of low-priced instruments (e.g., electronic and mechanical tachometers of various styles from $21 and up, engine gauges at similar prices, and hourmeters for $19.99), VW engine parts, metal-working tools, and even seatbelts with airplane-style buckles for less than $20. Of course, Whitney's is controversial because it sells many items for the loony-tunes crowd (like the infamous "pills" you put in the gas that rebuild your engine while you drive). However, I've always found their serious stuff to be decent quality, and sometimes OEM. Two other items: 1. The Jeep section offers what is claimed to be a seamless 15 gallon polyethylene gas tank for the CJ Jeeps $119.95. The claim it's far more durable than the OEM steel tank and they may be right, since the thing is 1/4" thick! The tank is rectangular and probably wouldn't be suitable on a KR as is, but might replace the passenger seat as an auxiliary tank for very long trips. 2. Whitney's also has a specialized VW catalog (where most of the VW parts are now), which has a number of header systems for VW engines at low prices. Obviously, welding would be needed to use these because the exhaust would exit in the wrong direction, but they might be a start toward a custom system on a KR. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:32:43 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: UV Protection and Cold, used to be Should I Glass My Fuselage???.... >I do not know what the cold limitations are for the KR. There >was a article a few months ago about a KR in Alaska. It gets colder >there then I want to get. Maybe some one else can address the cold >limitations of the KR. The old Newsletters seem to suggest that it's not the amount of cold that causes trouble but rapid changes in temperature. Keeping a KR in a heated hangar in the winter cold is probably a bad idea, because pushing it suddenly into the cold could lead to cracks. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:32:35 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: KR: Control Stops In a message dated 98-01-09 12:36:58 EST, you write: >>Whoa, babe! No stops? I'm going back to look at my plans; I thought >>the control travel limits/minima were all listed, and the control >>surface travels physically self-limited by the way the gap seals and >>aileron spars are constructed. >I don't know if the plans say anything about it but it kinda obvious that >the control horns for the elevator and rudder are by design the stops. At >least on my control horns anyway. The ailerons are another animal, I have >no idea how to setup control stops on the ailerons. Well, the down aileron is self-limiting, since once the piano hinge is completely closed, it ain't goin down no more. I guess the thing limiting the aileron going up is that it's connected by a cable to the aileron going down. This should be as solid a stop as one on the control stick. Arguing to the inspector that the controls are self-limiting and don't exceed the recommended limits (assuming they don't) is probably the best way to deal with this problem. Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:32:41 EST From: MikeT nyc Subject: Re: Re(2): KR: Accident Stats >I'm new to the KR. I'm considering building one. I'm just wondering if there >is >ample flight characteristic data published along with the kit, plans, etc... >I >read all of the NTSB reports concerning the KR and it seemed to me that time >after time pilots fail to maintain sufficient air speed at low altitude, >stall >and crash, often the pilot has little time in the aircraft type. Is it that >these pilots are unaware that the KR has a relatively high stall speed? Or is >this just natural selection at work? > >Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that there is obviously a trend here and it >appears to be nothing more than an educational issue, rather that a real >problem with the aircraft. The published KR stall speed is actually better than that of a clean 172, and just 3 mph higher than a 172 with full flaps -- the KR also has a better glide ratio when the engine dies. Tthe problem may be that people in all planes tend to panic when they lose an engine, maybe because they never get practice at it after they get their ticket. In the trainer planes you learn on, the instructor is always pulling the engine so you can practice emergency landings (at least mine always is!), but how often do people do this on their KRs, if ever? An interesting accessory would be a timer that would pull the engine to idle at random intervals so you could practice emergency landings. (Obviously, it would need an on/off switch, and also a way to let you know this was a fake emergency instead of a real one!) Mike Taglieri ------------------------------ End of krnet-l-digest V2 #8 ***************************